LSAT on resume

So basically we don't use it because people at our career planning workshops said not, so I suppose if they said to do it we all would. I'm not denying that it seems to be the way things are done, it's just interesting. To have the LSAT be as important as it is in law school admissions, but then be told that absent any other data (i.e. law school grades) a 145 is the same as a 180 means either the test lacks any validity and should be weighted far less in admissions or this is simply a social convention (a term which apparently offends some people here, but which seems to be the best description of what's going on). Again, sorry that questioning orthodoxy rankles some posters.

So basically we don't use it because people at our career planning workshops said not, so I suppose if they said to do it we all would. I'm not denying that it seems to be the way things are done, it's just interesting. To have the LSAT be as important as it is in law school admissions, but then be told that absent any other data (i.e. law school grades) a 145 is the same as a 180 means either the test lacks any validity and should be weighted far less in admissions or this is simply a social convention (a term which apparently offends some people here, but which seems to be the best description of what's going on). Again, sorry that questioning orthodoxy rankles some posters.

Have you considered that it's because, as a first matter, everyone knows the focus on LSAT is unseemly? And while law schools can't seem to get away from it, firms and employers are happy to take the opportunity to make the whole legal world a little less focused on one four-hour test?

i agree 100% with everything jacy85 said, and i will add one more thing. the LSAT is a "predictor of law school performance," nothing else. it cannot predict how competent of an employee one will be, and employers therefore don't care what score you got. your school's name will tell them what they want to know (given you're not in a position to supply grades). and i'll just re-emphasize one thing jacy pointed out: trying to set yourself apart by bragging about a 180 LSAT score is indeed douchey.

"180? why isn't this kid at yale or stanford or in at penn with a levy? maybe this lsat score is the best thing about him? maybe he has lousy grades because he's got no work ethic, and just got into a good law school because he got lucky on his test date?"

So basically we don't use it because people at our career planning workshops said not, so I suppose if they said to do it we all would. I'm not denying that it seems to be the way things are done, it's just interesting. To have the LSAT be as important as it is in law school admissions, but then be told that absent any other data (i.e. law school grades) a 145 is the same as a 180 means either the test lacks any validity and should be weighted far less in admissions or this is simply a social convention (a term which apparently offends some people here, but which seems to be the best description of what's going on). Again, sorry that questioning orthodoxy rankles some posters.

Are you sure you got a 180? It's a good thing there wasn't a problem like this on the test, because you're making lots of funky assumptions.

In general, institutions accept applicants when applicants give them what they want.

Prestige determining law school rankings , not insignificant part, by the LSAT scores of their incoming class; its possible to get into a good law school just by scoring high enough on the LSAT because it gives them one of the things they want.

Law firms on the other hand, don't publish LSAT statistics; they do however publish information about where their associates went to law school and that can be part of their strategy in attracting clients; its part of their professional image like wearing conservative suits. Adding another Harvard or Yale graduate to their list of associates is therefore often defacto enough to get in since it fulfills one of the things they want from associates.

A huge part of the appeal of a high LSAT to law schools does not exist with law firms: it doesn't give them anything.

Similarly a perfect GRE will not get you into a good grad school: its not what they're looking for.

A high LSAT tells employers that you're bright/read fast. When you have nothing else to put on your resume to make yourself stand out, it makes sense to put it on there. I made a 179, and I'll be putting it on my resume. I don't go to Yale, but on the only standard metric by which applicants are judged, I'm better than most Yale students. It may be that some people will be disgusted, like the poster above. But some people might be impressed, and many will consider it to be a relevant and meaningful data point. Cheers!

A high LSAT tells employers that you're bright/read fast. When you have nothing else to put on your resume to make yourself stand out, it makes sense to put it on there. I made a 179, and I'll be putting it on my resume. I don't go to Yale, but on the only standard metric by which applicants are judged, I'm better than most Yale students. It may be that some people will be disgusted, like the poster above. But some people might be impressed, and many will consider it to be a relevant and meaningful data point. Cheers!

Don't do it, dude. Seriously.

ETA: Because, as I said before, it's not about what you think it says about you, or even what it actually does say about you. It's about understanding and respecting the customs of a profession, and it is not considered acceptable to put an LSAT score on a resume. Full stop.

I never heard about that custom. In fact, I've seen job applications that request that you share your LSAT score. I think it was the Office of Chief Counsel at the IRS that wants it. It makes sense to ask for it, too, because it's a useful reading comprehension test.